say 



^^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 717 882 5 



Hollingcr 

pH 8.5 

Mai Run F03.2193 



E 713 
.S39 
Copy 1 



AMERICAN IMPERIALISM 



THE CONVOCATION ADDRESS DELIVERED ON THE 
OCCASION OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH CONVO- 
CATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. 



BY 



/ 

THE HON CARL SCHURZ, 



JANUARY 4. 1899. 



E 



3G025 




AMERICAN IMPERIALISM. 



The Convocation Address, delivered on the occasion of 

the Twenty-seventh Convocation of the University 

of Chicago, famiary 4, i8g^. 



BY THE HON. CARL SCHURZ. 



BY inviting me to address its faculty, its students, 
and its friends upon so distinguished an occasion, 
the University of Chicago has done me an honor for 
which I am profoundly grateful. I can prove that 
gratitude in no better way than by uttering with entire 
frankness my honest convictions on the great subject 
you have given me to discuss — a subject fraught with 
more momentous consequence than any ever submitted 
to the judgment of the American people since the foun- 
dation of our constitutional government. 

It is proposed to embark this republic in a course of 
imperialistic policy by permanently rnnexing to it cer- 
tain islands taken, or partly taken, from Spain in the 
late war. The matter is near its decision, but not yet 
decided. The peace treaty made at Paris is not yet 
ratified by the Senate; but even if it were, the question 
whether those islands, although ceded by Spain, shall 
be permanently incorporated in the territory of the 
United States would still be open for final determina- 
tion by Congress. As an open question therefore I shall 
discuss it. 

If ever, it behooves the American people to think and 
act with calm deliberation, for the character and future 
of the republic and the welfare of its people now living 
and yet to be bom arc in unprecedented jeopardy. To 
from a candid judgment of what this republic has been, 



what it may become, and what it ought to be, let us 
first recall to our minds its condition before the recent 
Spanish War. 

Our government was, in the words of Abraham 
Lincoln, ' ' the government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people." It was the noblest 
ambition of all true Americans to carr}^ this demo- 
cratic government to the highest degree of per- 
fection and justice, in probity, in assured peace, in 
the security of human rights, in progressive civilization; 
to solve the problem of popular self-government on the 
grandest scale, and thus to make this republic the ex- 
ample and guiding star of mankind. 

We had invited the oppressed of all nations to find 
shelter here, and to enjoy with us the blessings of free 
institutions. They came by the millions. Some were 
not so welcome as others, but under the assimilating 
force of American life in our temperate climate, which 
stimulates the working energies, nurses the spirit of 
orderly freedom, and thus favors the growth of democ- 
racies, they became good Americans, most in the first, 
all in the following generations. And so with all the 
blood-crossings caused by the motley immigration, we 
became a substantially homogeneous people, united by 
common political beliefs and ideals, by common inter- 
ests, laws, and aspirations — in one word, a nation. In- 
deed, we were not without our difficulties and embar- 
rassments, but only one of them, the race antagonism 
between the negroes and the whites, especially where 
the negroes live in mass, presents a problem which so 
far has baffled all efforts at practical solution in har- 
mony with the spirit of our free institutions, and thus 
threatens complications of a grave character. 

We gloried in the marvellous growth of our popula- 
tion, wealth, power, and civilization, and in the incal- 
culable richness of the resources of our country, capable 
of harboring three times our present population, and 
of immeasurable further material development. Our 
commerce with the world abroad, although we had no 
colonies, and but a small navy, spread with unprece- 



dented rapidity, capturing one foreign market after an- 
other, not only for the products of our farms, but also 
for many of those of our manufacturing industries, with 
prospect of indefinite extension. 

Peace reigned within our borders, and there was not 
the famtest shadow of danger of foreign attack. Our 
voice, whenever we chose to speak in the councils of 
nations, was listened to with respect, even the mightiest 
sea-power on occasion yielding to us a deference far 
beyond its habit in its intercourse with others. We- 
were considered ultimately invincible, if not invul- 
nerable, in our continental stronghold. It was our 
boast, not that we possessed great and costly armies 
and navies, but that we did not need any. This excep- 
tional blessing was our pride, as it was the envy of the 
world. We looked down with pitying sympathy on 
other nations which submissively groaned under the 
burden of constantly increasing armaments, and we 
praised our good fortune for having saved us from so 
wretched a fate. , • i i 

Such was our condition, such our beliefs and ideals, 
such our ambition and our pride, but a short year ago. 
Had the famous peace message of the Czar of Russia, 
with its protest against growing militarism and its plea 
for disarmament, reached us then, it would have been 
hailed with enthusiasm by ever>' American as a triumph 
of our example. We might have claimed only that to 
our republic, and not to the Russian monarch, belonged 
the place of leadership in so great an onward step in the 
progress of civilization. 

Then came the Spanish War. A few vigorous blows 
laid the feeble enemy helpless at our feet. The whole 
scene seemed to have suddenly changed. According to 
the solemn proclamation of our government, the war 
had been undertaken solely for the liberation of Cuba, 
as a war of humanity and not of conquest. But our 
easy victories had put conquest within our reach, and 
when our arms occupied foreign territory, a loud de- 
mand arose that, pledge or no pledge to the contrary, the 
conquests should be kept, even the Philippmes on 



the other side of the globe, and that as to Cuba herself, 
independence would only be a provisional formality. 
Why not ? was the cry. Has not the career of the re- 
public almost from its very beginning been one of ter- 
ritorial expansion? Has it not acquired Louisiana, 
Plorida, Texas, the vast countries that came to us 
through the Mexican War, and Alaska, and has it not 
digested them well ? Were not those acquisitions much 
larger than those now in contemplation ? If the re- 
public could digest the old, why not the new ? What 
is the diiference ? 

Only look with an unclouded eye, and you will soon 
discover differences enough warning you to beware. 
There are five of decisive importance. 

1. All the former acqusitions were on this continent, 
and, excepting Alaska, contigious to our borders. 

2. They were situated, not in the tropical, but in the 
temperate zone, where democratic institutions thrive, 
and where our people could migrate in mass. 

3. They were but very thinly peopled — in fact, with- 
out any population that would have been in the way of 
new settlement. 

4. They could be organized as territories in the usual 
manner, with the expectation that they would presently 
come into the Union as self-governing states with popu- 
lations substantially homogeneous to our own. 

5. They did not' require a material increase of our 
army or navy, ei her for their subjection to our rule or 
for their defense against any probable foreign attack 
provoked by their being in our possession. 

Acquisitions of that nature we might, since the slav- 
ery trouble has been allayed, make indefinitely without 
in any dangerous degree imperiling our great experi- 
ment of democratic "institutions on the grandest scale ; 
without putting the peace of the republic in jeopardy, 
and without depriving us of the inestimable privilege of 
comparative unarmed security on a compact continent 
which may, indeed, by an enterprising enemy, be 
scratched on our edges, but is with a people like ours, vir- 
tually impregnable. Even of our far away Alaska it 



can be said that, although at present a possession of 
doubtful value, it is at least mainly on this continent 
and may at some future time, when the inhabitants of 
the r ritish possessions happily wish to unite with us, be 
within our uninterrupted boundaries. 

Compare now with our old acquisitions as to all these 
important points those at present in view. 

They are not continental, not contiguous to our 
present domain, but beyond seas, the Philippines many 
thousand miles distant from our coast. They are all 
situated in the tropics, where people of the northern 
races, such as Anglo-Saxons, or, generally speaking, 
people of Germanic blood, have never migrated in 
mass to stay ; and they are more or less densely popu- 
lated, parts of them as densely as IMassachusetts— their 
populations consisting almost exclusively of races to 
whom the tropical climate is congenial— Spanish Cre- 
oles mixed with negroes in the West Indies, and Ma- 
lays, Tagals, Filipinos, Chinese, Japanese, Negritos, and 
various more or less barbarous tribes in the Philippines. 

When the question is asked whether we may hope 
to adapt those countries and populations to our system 
of government, the advocates of annexation answer 
cheerily, that when they belong to us, we shall soon 
"Americanize" them. This may mean that Ameri- 
cans in sufficiently large numbers will migrate there to 
determine the character of those populations so as to 
assimilate them to our own. 

This is a delusion of the first magnitude. We shall, 
indeed, be able, if we go honestly about it, to accomplish 
several salutary things in those countries. But one thing 
we cannot do. We cannot strip the tropical climate of 
those qualities which have at all times deterred men of 
the northern races, to which we belong, from migrating 
to such countries in mass, and to make their homes 
there, as they have migrated and are still migrating to 
countries in the temperate zone. This is not a mere 
theory, but a fact of universal experience. 

It is true, you will find in tropical regions a sprink- 
ling of persons of Anglo-Saxon or other norlhern ori- 



8 

gin^tnerchants, railroad builders, speculators, profes- 
sional men, miners, and mechanics; also here and there 
an agriculturist. But their number is small, and most 
of them expect to go home again as soon as their 
money-making purpose is more or less accomplished. 
Thus we observe now that business men with plenty 
of means are casting their eyes upon our ' ' new posses- 
sions" to establish mercantile houses there, or manu- 
factories to be worked with native labor; and moneyed 
syndicates and "improvement companies" to exploit 
the resources of those coimtries, and speculators and 
promoters to take advantage of what may turn up — the 
franchise g-rabber, as reported, is already there — many 
having perfectly legitimate ends in view, others 
ends not so legitimate, and all expecting to be more or 
less favored by the power of our government; in short, 
the capitalist is thinking of going there, or to send his 
agents, his enterprises in most cases to be directed from 
these more congenial shores. But you will find that 
laboring men of the northern races, as they have never 
done so before, will not now go there in mass to do the 
work of the country, agricultural or industrial, and to 
found there permanent homes; and this is not rnerely 
because the rate of wages in such countries is, owing to 
native competition, usually low, but because they can- 
not thrive there under the climatic conditions. 

But it is the working-masses, those laboring in agri- 
culture and the industries, that everywhere form the 
bulk of the population ; and they are the true constitu- 
ency of democratic government. And as the northern 
races cannot do the work of the tropical zone, they 
cannot furnish such constituencies. It is an incontesta- 
ble and very significant fact that the British, the best 
colonizers in history, have, indeed, established in tropi- 
cal regions governments and rather absolute ones, but 
they have never succeeded in establishing there demo 
craiic commonwealths of the Anglo-Saxon type, like 
those in America or Australia. 

The scheme of Americanizing our "new pos- 
sessions " in that sense is therefore absolutely hopeless. 



The immutable forces of nature are against it. What- 
ever we may do for their improvement, the people of 
the Spanish Antilles will remum in overwhelming' 
numerical predominance, Spanisii Creoles and negroes, 
and the people of the Philippines, Filipinos, Malays, 
Tagals, and so on — some of them c[uite clever in their 
way, but the vast majority utterly alien to us, not only 
in origin and language, but in habits, traditions, ways 
of thinking, principles, ambitions — in short, in most 
things that are of the greatest importance in human 
intercourse and especially in political cooperation. And 
under the influences of their tropical climate they will 
prove incapable of becoming assimilated to the Anglo- 
Saxon. They would, therefore, remain in the popula- 
tion of this republic a hopelessly heterogeneous ele- 
ment — in some respects more hopeless even than the 
colored people now living among us. 

What, then, shall we do with such populations ? 
Shall we, according, not indeed to the letter, but to the 
evident spirit of our constitution, organize those coun- 
tries as territories with a view to their eventual admis- 
sion as states ? If they become states on an equal foot- 
ing with the other states they will not only be permit- 
ted to govern themselves as to their home concerns, 
but they will take part in governing the whole republic, 
in governing us, by sending senators and representa- 
tives into our Congress to help make our laws, and by 
voting for president and vice-president to give our 
national government its executive. The prospect of 
the consequences which would follow the admission of 
the Spanish Creoles and the negroes of West India 
islands and of the Malays and Tagals of the Philippines 
to participation in the conduct of our government is so 
alamiing that you instinctively pause before taking the 
step. 

But this may be avoided, it is said, by governing the 
new possessions as mere dependencies, or subject prov- 
inces. I will waive the constitutional question and 
merely point out that this would be a most serious de- 
parture from the rule that governed our former acquis- 



itions, which are so frequently quoted as precedents. 
It is useless to speak of the District of Columbia and 
Alaska as proof that we have done such things before 
and can do them again. Every candid mind will at 
once admit the vast difference between those cases and 
the permanent establishment of substantially arbitrary 
government over large territories with many millions 
of inhabitants, and with a prospect of there being many 
more of the same kind, if we once launch out on a ca- 
reer of conquest. The question is not merely whether 
we can do such things, but whether, having the public 
good at heart, we should do them. 

If we do adopt such a system, then we shall, for the 
first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two 
kinds of Americans : Americans of the first class, who 
enjoy the privilege of taking part in the government in 
accordance with our old constitutional principles, and 
Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a 
substantially arbitrary fashion by the Americans of the 
first class, through congressional legislation and the 
action of the national executive — not to speak of indi- 
vidual " masters " arrogating to themselves powers be- 
yond the law. 

This will be a difference no better — nay, rather some- 
what worse — than that which a century and a quarter 
ago still existed between Englishmen of the first 
and Englishmen of the second class, the first rep- 
resented by King George and the British Parliament, 
and the second by the American colonists. This differ- 
ence called forth that great paean of human liberty, the 
American Declaration of Independence — a document 
which, I regret to say, seems, owing to the intoxication 
of conquest, to have lost much of its charm among 
some of our fellow citizens. Its fundamental princi- 
ple was that "governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed." We are now told 
that we have never fully lived up to that principle, and 
that, therefore, in our new policy we may cast it aside 
altogether. But I say to you that, if we are true be- 
lievers in democratic government, it is our duty to 



move in the direction towards the full realization of 
that principle and not in the direction away from it. If 
you tell me that we cannot g-ovem the people of those 
new possessions in accordance with that principle, then 
I answer that this is a good reason why this democracy 
should not attempt to govern them at all. 

If we do, we shall transform the government 
of the people, for the people, and by the peo- 
ple, for which Abraham Lincoln lived, into a govern- 
ment of one part of the people, the strong, over an- 
other part, the weak. Such an abandonment of a fun- 
damental principle as a permanent policy may at first 
seem to bear only upon more or less distant dependen- 
cies, but it can hardly fail in its ultimate effects to dis- 
turb the rule of the same principle in the conduct of 
democratic government at home. And I warn the 
American people that a democracy cannot so deny its 
faith as to the vital conditions of its being — it cannot 
long play the king over subject populations without 
creating within itself ways of thinking and habits of 
action most dangerous to its own vitality — most danger- 
ous especially to those classes of society which are the 
least powerful in the assertion, and the most helpless in 
the defense of their rights. Let the poor and the men 
who earn their bread by the labor of their hands pause 
and consider well before they give their assent to a pol- 
icy so deliberately forgetful of the equality of rights. 

I do not mean to say, however, that all of our new 
acquisitions would be ruled as subject provinces. 
Some of them, the Philippines, would probably remain 
such, but some others would doubtless become states. 
In Porto Rico, for instance, politiciansof lively ambition 
are already clamoring for the speedy organiza.tion of 
that island as a regular territory, soon to be admitted as 
a state of the Union. You may say that they will have 
long to wait. Be not so sure of that. Consult your 
own experience. Has not more than one territory, 
hardly fitted for statehood, been precipitated into the 
Union as a state when the majority party in Congress 
thought that, by doing so, its party strength could be 



12 



augmented in the senate and in the house and in the 
electoral college? Have our parties become so unself- 
ishly virtuous that this may not happen again? So we 
may see Porto Rico admitted before we have had time 
to rub our eyes. 

You may say that little Porto Rico would not mat- 
ter much. But can any clear thinking man believe that, 
when we are once fairly started in the course of indis- 
criminate expansion, we shall stop there? Will not the 
same reasons which induced us to take Porto Rico also 
be used to show that the two islands of San Domingo 
with Hayti, and of Cuba, which separate Porto Rico 
from our coast, would, if they were in foreign hands, be 
a danger to us, and that we must take them? Nothing 
could be more plausible. Why, the necessity of annex- 
ing San Domingo is already freely discussed, and agen- 
cies to bring this about are actually at work. And as to 
Cuba, every expansionist will tell you that it is only a 
matter of time. And does any one believe that those 
islands, if annexed, will not become states of this Union? 
That would give us at least three, perhaps four, new 
states, with about 3,500,000 inhabitants, Spanish and 
French Creoles and negroes, with six or eight senators, 
and from fifteen to twenty representatives in Congress 
and a corresponding number of votes in the electoral 
college. 

Nor are we likely to stop there. If we build and 
own the Nicaragua Canal, instead of neutralizing it, we 
shall easily persuade ourselves that our control of that 
canal will not be safe unless we own all the country 
down to it, so that it be not separated from our borders 
by any foreign, and possibly hostile power. Is this too 
adventurous an idea to become true? Why, it is not 
half as adventurous and extravagant as the idea of unit- 
ing to this republic the Philippines, 9,000 miles away. 
It is idready proposed to acquire in some way strips of 
territory several miles wide on each side of that canal 
for its military protection. But that will certainly be 
found insufficient if foreign countries lie between. We 
must, therefore, have tliose countries. That means 



13 

Mexico and various small Central American republics, 
with a population in all of about 14,000,000, mostly 
Spanish- Indian mixture — making at least fifteen states, 
entitled to thirty senators and scores of representatives 
and presidential electors. 

As to the character of the people whom those sena- 
tors, members, and presidential electors are to represent, 
I will let an authority speak that may astonish you, con- 
sidering his present position — the Hon. Whitelaw Reid, 
who said in a public address at the time when the an- 
nexation of San Domingo was under discussion : 

" This land greed of the Anglo-Saxon race is still at 
work. We have absorbed the best part of Mexico, but 
we have plenty of propagandists, mainly in the army, 
and with influential voice near the head of the govern- 
ment, clamorous for the rest. We have taken a foot- 
hold in the West Indies ; it will be of God's mercy if 
we do not find the whole West Indian archipelago 
crowded upon us to tax an already overloaded digestion. 
What are we to do with the turbulent, treacherous, ill- 
conditioned population? They have shown no faculty 
for self-government hitherto ; and are we to precipitate 
them in a mass into the already sufficiently -degraded 
elements of our national suffrage? We are trying the 
powers of Anglo-Saxon self-governing digestion upon 
three millions of slaves ; are the gastric juices of the 
body politic equal to the addition of the Mexicans, the 
Santo Domingans, the Cubans, the ' Conks ' of the Ba- 
hamas, the Kanakas, and the rest of the inferior mixed 
races of our outlying tropical and semi-tropical depen- 
dencies? " 

As Mr. Reid now advocates the annexation of Porto 
Rico and the Philippines, he must have changed his 
opinion, which he had a right to do. But I think he 
substantially spoke the truth then, and if he now wants 
the Philippines, his case clearly illustrates how far 
people will be carried by the expansion fever when it 
once fairly takes hold of them. 

You may think that the introduction of more than 
thirty men in our senate, over eighty in the lower 



house of our Congress, and much over one hundred 
votes in our electoral college, to speak and act for the 
mixture of Spanish, French, and negro blood on the 
West India Islands, and for the Spanish and Indian 
mixture on the continent south of us — for people utterly- 
alien and mostly incapable of assimilation to us in their 
tropical habitation — to make our laws and elect our 
presidents, and incidentally to help us lift up the Phil- 
ippines to a higher plane of civili;:ation — is too shocking 
a proposition to be entertained for a moment, and that 
our people will resist it to the bitter end. No, they 
will not resist it, if indiscriminate expansion has once 
become the settled policy of the republic. They will 
be told, as they are told now, that we are in it and can- 
not get honorably out of it ; that destiny, and Provi- 
dence, and duty demand it ; that it would be cowardly 
to shrink from our new responsibilities ; that those pop- 
ulations cannot take care of themselves, and that it is 
our mission to let them have the blessing of our free in- 
stitutions ; that we must h^ve new markets for our 
products ; that those countries are rich in resources, 
and that there is plenty of money to be made by taking 
them ; that the American people can whip anybody 
and do anything they set out to do; and that "Old 
Glory " should float over every land on which we can 
lay our hands. 

Those who have yielded to such cries once, will yield 
to them again. Conservri.tive citii^ens will tell them 
that thus the homogeneousness of the people of the re- 
pul^lic, so essential to the working of our democratic in- 
stitutions, will be irretrievably lost ; that our race 
troubles, already dangerous, will be infinitely aggra- 
vated, and that the government of, by, and for the 
people will be in imminent danger of fatal demoraliza- 
tion. They will be cried down as pusillanimous pessi- 
mists, who are no longer American patriots. The 
American people will be driven on and on by the force 
of events as Napoleon was when started on his career of 
limitless conquest. This is imperialism as now advo- 
cated. Do we wish to prevent its excesses ? Then we 



^5 

must stop at the beginning, before takinj^ Porto Rico. 
If we take that island, not even to speak of the Philip- 
pines, we shall have placed ourselves on the inclined 
plane, and roll on and on, no longer masters of our own 
will, until we have reached bottom. And where will 
that bottom be ? Who knows ? 

Our old acquisitions did not require a material in- 
crease of our army and navy. What of the new ? It 
is generally admitted that we need very considerable 
additions to out armaments on land and sea to restore 
and keep order on the islands taken from Spain, and 
then to establish our sovereignty there. This is a 
ticklish business. In the first place, Spain has never 
been in actual control and possession of a good many 
of the Philippine islands, while on others the insur- 
gent Filipinos had well-nigh destroyed the Spanish 
power when the treaty of Paris was made. The peo- 
ple of those islands will either peaceably submit to 
our rule or they will not. If they do not, and we 
must conquer them by force of arms, we shall at once 
have war on our hands. 

What kind of a war will that be ? The Filipinos 
fought against Spain for their freedom and indepen- 
dence, and unless they abandon their recently pro- 
claimed purpose, it is for their freedom and independ- 
ence, that they will fight against us. To be sure, we 
promise them all sorts of good things if they will con- 
sent to become our subjects. But they may, and prob- 
ably will prefer independence to foreign rule, no matter 
what fair promises the foreign invader makes. For 
to the Filipinos the American is essentially a for- 
eigner, more foreign in some respects than even the 
Spaniard was. Now, if they resist, what shall we 
do? Kill them ? Let soldiers marching under the 
stars and stripes shoot them down ? Shoot them down 
because they stand up for their independence, just 
as the Cubans, who are no better than thty, fought 
for their independence, to which we soicnmly de- 
clared them to be " of right " entitled ? Look at 
this calmly if you can. 



i6 

The American volunteers, who rushed to arms by 
the hundreds of thousands to fight for Cuban inde- 
pendence, may not stomach this killing of Filipinos 
fighting for their independence. We shall have to 
rely upon the regulars, the professional soldiers, and 
we may need a good many of them. As to the best 
way to fill the ranks in the Philippines, General Mer- 
ritt is reported to have spoken in a recent interview 
published in the New York papers as follows : 

' ' To my mind the permanent force should consist 
of from 20,000 to 30,000 men. Of these 15,000 should 
be American soldiers. The remainder of the troops 
might be recruited from the Spaniards and Filipinos. 
The latter have exhibited no desire to enlist thus far, 
but there are many Spaniards there who have ex- 
pressed a wish to wear the blue. They were impressed 
with the good pay and treatment of our men, and I 
think they would make good American soldiers. They 
are brave and hardy, but have suffered for lack of dis- 
cipline. " 

Of course, General Merritt spoke only as the pro- 
fessional soldier, who has to take care of the army, 
and I do not blame him. But the idea of engaging 
the same Spaniards, who but recently fought us and 
the Filipinos at the same time, to do the killing of the 
same Filipinos for us, or at least to terrorize them into 
subjection, because we want to possess their land, and 
to do this under the stars and stripes — this idea is at 
first sight a little startling. It may make the Hessians 
of our Revolutionary War grin in their graves. If 
anybody had predicted such a possibility a 3'ear ago, 
every patriotic American would have felt an impulse to 
kick him downstairs. However, this is imperialism. It 
bids us not to be squeamish. Indeed, some of our fel- 
fow-citizcns seem already to be full of its spirit. The 
Hon. Cyrus A. Sulloway, a member of Congress from 
New Hampshire, is reported to have said in a recent 
interview: " The Anglo-Saxon advances into the new 
regions with a Bible in one hand and a shotgun in the 
other. The inhabitants of those regions that he cannot 



^7 

convert with the aid of the Bible and bring into his 
markets, he gets rid of with the shotgun. It is but 
another demonstration of the survival of the fittest." 
In other words, unless you worship as we command 
you, and give us a profitable trade, we shall have to 
shoot you down. The bloodiest of the old Spanish 
conquerors, four centuries ago, could not have spoken 
better. It has a strange sound in free America. Let 
us hope that the spread of this hideous brutality of 
sentiment will prove only a temporary epidemic, like 
the influenza, and will yield again when the intoxica- 
tion of victory subsides and our heads become cool 
once more. If it does not, more shotguns will be 
needed than Mr, Solloway may now anticipate. 

If we take those new regions, we shall be well 
entangled in that contest for territorial aggrandizement, 
which distracts other nations and drives them far 
beyond their original design. So it will be inevitably 
with us. We shall want new conquests to protect that 
which we already possess. The greed of speculators 
working upon our government, will push us from one 
point to another, and we shall have new conflicts on our 
hands, almost without knowing how we got into them. 
It has always been so under such circumstances, and 
always will be. This means more and more soldiers, 
ships, and guns. 

A singular delusion has taken hold of the minds of 
otherwise clear-headed men. It is that our new friend- 
ship with England will serve firmly to secure the 
world's peace. Nobody can hail that friendly feeling 
between the two nations more warmly than I do, and 
I fervidly hope it will last. But I am profoundly con- 
vinced that if this friendship results in the two coun- 
tries setting out to grasp "for the Anglo-Saxon," as 
the phrase is, whatever of the earth may be attain- 
able — if they hunt in couple — they will surely soon fall 
out about the game, and the first serious quarrel, or at 
teast one of the first, we shall have, will be with Great 
Britain. And as family feuds are the bitterest, that 



i8 

feud will be apt to become one of the most deplorable 
in its consequences. 

No nation is, or ought to be, unselfish. England, 
in her friendly feeling toward us, is not inspired by 
mere sentimental benevolence. The anxious wish of 
many Englishmen that we should take the Philippines 
is not free from the consideration that, if we do so, we 
shall for a long time depend on British friendship to 
maintain our position on that field of rivalr}'-, and that 
Britain will derive ample profit from our dependence 
on her. This was recently set forth with startling 
candor by the London Saturday Review, thus : 

" Let us be frank and say outright that we expect 
mutual gain in material interests from this rapproche- 
ment. The American Commissioners at Paris are mak- 
ing this bargain, whether they realize it or not, under 
the protecting naval strength of England, and we shall 
expect a m.aterial quid pro quo for this assistance. We 
expect the United States to deal generously with 
Canada in the matter of tariffs, and we expect to be 
remembered when the United States comes into posses- 
sion of the Philippine Islands, and, above all, we 
expect her assistance on the day, which is quickly 
approaching, when the future of China comes t:p for 
settlement, for the young imperialist has entered upon 
a path where it will require a strong friend, and a 
lasting friendship between the two nations can be 
secured, not by frothy sentimentality on public plat- 
forms, but by reciprocal advantages in solid, material 
interests. " 

And the cable dispatch from London bringing this 
utterance added : 

"The foregoing opinion is certainly outspoken 
enough, but every American moving in business circles 
here knows this voices the expectations of the average 
Englishman. " 

This is plain. If Englishmen think so we have no 
fault to find with them. But it would be extremely 
foolish on our part to close our eyes to the fact. British 
friendship is a good thing to have, but, perhaps, not so 



19 

good a thing to need. If we are wise we shall not put 
ourselves in a situation in which we shall need it. 
British statesmanship has sometimes shown great skill 
in making- other nations fight its battles. This is veiy 
admirable from its point of view, but it is not so 
pleasant for the nations so used. I should be loath to 
see this republic associated with Great Britain in appar- 
ently joint concerns as junior partner with a minority 
interest, or the American navy in the situation of a 
mere squadron of the British fleet. This would surely 
lead to trouble in the settling of accounts. Lord 
Salisbuiy was decidedly right when, at the last lord 
mayor's banquet, he said that the appearance of the 
United States as a factor in Asiatic affairs was likely to 
conduce to the interest of Great Britain, but might 
"not conduce to the interest of peace." Whether he 
had eventual quarrels with this republic in mind, I do 
not know. But it is certain that the expression of 
British sentiment I have just quoted shows us a 
Pandora box of such quarrels. 

Ardently desiring the maintenance of the friendship 
between England and this republic, I cannot but 
express the profound belief that this friendship wall 
remain most secure if the two nations do not attempt to 
accomplish the same ends in the same way and on the 
same field, but continue to follow the separate courses 
prescribed by their peculiar conditions and their history. 
The histoi-y of England is that of a small island, 
inhabited by a vigorous, energetic and rapidly multi- 
plying race, with the sea for its given field of action. 
Nothing could be more natural than that, as the popu- 
lation pressed against its narrow boundaries, English- 
men should have swarmed out, founding colonies and 
gradually building up an empire of possessions scat- 
tered all over the globe. England now wust have the 
most powerful fleet in the world, not only for the pro- 
tection of her distant possessions, but becaxise if any 
other sea power, or combination of sea powers, could 
effectually blockade her coasts, her people as they now 
are, might be starved in a fcv.- months. England must 



be the ^eatest sea power in order to be a great power 
at all. 

The American people began their career as one of 
the colonial offshoots of the English stock. They found 
a great continent to occupy and to fill with democratic 
commonwealths. Our country is large enough for 
several times our present population. Our home 
resources are enormous, in great part not yet touched. 
We need not fear to be starved by the completest 
blockade of our coasts, for we have enough of every- 
thing and to spare. On the contrary such a blockade 
might rather result in starving others that need our 
products. We are to-day one of the greatest powers on 
earth, without having the most powerful fleet, and 
without stepping beyond our continent. We are sure 
to be by far the greatest power of all, as our homogene- 
ous, intelligent, and patriotic population multiplies, and 
our resources are developed, without firing a gun or 
sacrificing a life for the sake of conquest — far more 
powerful than the British Empire with all its Hindoos, 
and than the Russian Emxpire with all its Mongols. We 
can exercise the most beneficent influences upon man- 
kind, not by forcing our rule or our goods upon others 
that are weak at the point of the bayonet, but through 
the moral power of our example, in proving how the 
greatest as well as the smallest nation can carry on the 
government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people in justice, liberty, order, and peace without large 
armies and navies. 

Let this republic and Great Britain each follow the 
course which its conditions and its history have assigned 
to it, and their ambitions will not clash, and the'r friend- 
ships can be maintained for the good of all. And if our 
British cousins should ever get into serious stress, 
American friendship may stand behind them ; but then 
Britain would depend on our friendship, which, as an 
American, 1 should prefer, and not America on British 
friendship, as our British friends who so impatiently 
urge us to take the Philippines, would have it. But if 
we do take the Philippines, and thus entangle ourselves 



in the rivalries of Asiatic affairs, the future will be, as 
Lord Salisbury predicted, one of wars and rumors of 
wars, and the time will be forever past when we could 
look down with condescending pity on the nations of 
the old world groaning under militarism with all its 
burdens. 

We are already told that we shall need a regular army 
of at least 100,000 men, three-fourths of whom are to 
sen^e in our "new possessions." The question is 
whether this necessity is only to be temporary or per- 
manent. Look at the cost. Last year the support of 
the army proper required about $23,000,000. It is com- 
puted that, taking the increased costliness of the service 
in the tropics into account, the army under the new dis- 
pensation will require about $150,000,000; that is, 
$127,000,000 a year more. It is also officially admitted 
that the possession of the Philippines would render in- 
dispensable a much larger increase of the navy than 
would otherwise be necessary, costing untold millions 
for the building and equipment of ships, and untold 
millions every year for their maintenance and for the 
increased number of officers and men. What we shall 
have to spend for fortifications and the like cannot now 
be computed. But there is a burden upon us which in 
like weight no other nation has to bear. To-day, thirty- 
three years after the Civil War, we have a pension roll 
of very nearly one million names. And still they come. 
We paid to pensioners over $145,000,000 last year, a 
sum larger than the annual cost of the whole military 
peace establishment of the German Empire, including 
its pension roll. Our recent Spanish War will, accord- 
ing to a moderate estimate, add at least $20,000,000 to 
our annual pension payments. But if wc send troops 
to the tropics and keep them there, wc must look for a 
steady stream of pensioners from that quarter, for in 
the tropics soldiers are "used up" very fast, even if 
they have no campaigning to do. 

But all such estimates are futile. There may, and 
probably will be, much campaigning to do to keep our 
new subjects in obedience, or even in conflicts with 



other powers. And what military and naval expedi- 
tions will then cost, with our extravagant habits, and 
how the pension roll then will grow, we know to be in- 
calcnlable. Moreover, we shall then be in the situa- 
tion of those European powers, the extent of whose ar 
maments are determined, not by their own wishes, but 
by the armaments of their rivals. We, too, shall nerv- 
ously watch reports from abroad telling us that this 
power is augmenting the number of its warships, or 
that another is increasing its battalions, or strengthen- 
ing its colonial garrisons in the neighborhood of our 
far-away possessions ; and we shall have to follow suit. 
Not we ourselves, but our rivals and possible enemies 
will decide how large our armies and navies must be, 
and how much money we must spend for them. And 
all that money will have to come out of the pockets of 
our people, the poor as well as the rich. Our tax- paying 
capacity and willingness are indeed very great. But set 
your policy of imperialism in full swing, as the acqui- 
sition of the Philippines will do, and the time will come, 
and come quickly, when every American farmer and 
workingman, when going to his toil, will, like his Euro- 
pean brother, have ' ' to carry a fully armed s®ldier on 
his back." 

Our government has agreed to appear in the " Peace- 
and Disarmament Conference " called by the Russian 
czar. What will our representative have to say when 
the Russian spokesman, as the czar has done, truth- 
fully describes the ever-growing evils of militarism, 
and the necessity of putting a stop to them in the in- 
terest of civilization and of the popular welfare ? The 
American imperialist, whatever fine phrases he may 
employ, will have to say substantially this: "All you 
tell us about the ruinous effects of increasing arma- 
ments and the necessity of stopping them in the interest 
of civilization and the popular welfare was our own 
belief some time ago. But we Americans have recently 
changed our minds. You, gentlemen, say that the 
powers you represent would disarm if they could, and 
that general disannanient might be possible if one 



23 

power would resolutely begin to disarm. But we 
Americans are just beginning to arm. You say that 
this will put another difficulty in the way of general 
di&irmament. But we Americans have, by way of lib- 
erating Cuba, won by conquest some islands in both 
hemispheres, to which we may wish to add, and this 
business will require larger armies and navies than we 
now have. " 

This is the voice of American imperialism. And 
thus our great and glorious republic, which once boasted 
of marching in the vanguard of progressive civilization, 
will deliberately go to the rear, and make of itself a 
new obstacle to a reform, the success of which would 
do infinitely more for the general good of mankind than 
we could accomplish by a hundred victories of our arms 
on land or sea. 

It would seem, therefore, that the new territorial 
acquisitions in view are after all very different from 
those we have made before. But something more is to 
be said. When the Cuban affair approached a crisis, 
President McKinley declared in his message that 
"forcible anne:^ation cannot be thought of" for "it 
would, by our code of morals, be criminal aggression." 
And in resolving upon the war against Spain, Congress, 
to commend that war to the public opinion of mankind, 
declared with equal emphasis and solemnity that the 
war was, from a sense of duty and humanity, made spe- 
cifically for the liberation of Cuba, and that Cuba "is, 
and of right ought to be, free and independent." If 
these declarations were not sincere, they were base and 
disgraceful acts of hypocrisy. If they were sincere at 
the time, would they not be turned into such disgraceful 
acts of hypocrisy by subsequently changing the war, 
professedly made from motives of duty and humanity, 
into a war of conquest and self-aggrandizement ? It is 
pretended that these virtuous promises referred to Cuba 
only. But if President McKinley had said that, while 
the forcible annexation of Cuba would be criminal 
aggression, the forcible annexation of anything else 
would be perfectly right, and if Congress had declared 



24 

that as to Cuba the war would be one of mere duty^ 
humanity, and liberation, but that we would take by 
conquest whatever else we could lay our hands on, 
would not all mankind have broken out in a shout of 
scornful derision ! 

I ask in all candor, taking- President McKinley at his 
word: Will the forcible annexation of the Phillippines 
by our code of morals not be criminal aggression — a 
self-confessed crime ? I ask further, if the Cubans, as 
Congress declared, are and of right ought to be free and 
independent, can anybody tell me why the Porto Ricans 
and the Filipinos ought not of right to be free and inde- 
pendent ? Can you sincerely recognize the right to 
freedom and independence of one and refuse the same 
right to another in the same situation, and then take 
his land? Would not that be double-dealing of the 
most shameless sort ? 

We hear much of the respect of mankind for us 
having been greatly raised by our victories. Indeed, 
the valor of our soldiers and the brilliant achievements 
of our navy have won deserved admiration. But do not 
deceive yourselves about the respect of mankind. 
Recently I found in the papers an account of the public 
opinion of Europe, written by a prominent English 
journalist. This is what he says : "The friends of 
America wring their hands in unaffected grief over the 
fall of the United States under the temptation of the 
lust of territorial expansion. Her enemies shoot out 
the lip and shriek in derision over what they regard as 
the unmistakable demonstration which the demand for 
the Philippines affords of American cupidity, American 
bad faith and American ambition. 'We told you so/ 
they exclaim. That is what the unctuous rectitude of 
the Anglo-Saxon always ends in. He always begins by 
calling heaven to witness his unselfish desire to help his 
neighbor, but he always ends by stealing his spoons! " 

Atrocious, is it not? And yet this is substantially 
what the true friends of America, and what her enemies 
in Europe, think — I mean those friends who had faith 
in the nobility of the American people, who loved our 



25 

republican government, and who hoped that the exam- 
ple set by oiir great democracy, would be an inspiration 
to those struggling for liberty the world over ; and I 
«iean those enemies who hate republican government 
and who long to see the American people disgraced and 
humiliated. So they think: I know it from my own 
correspondence. Nothing has in our times discredited 
the name of republic in the civilized world as much as 
the Dreyfus outrage in France and our conquest furor 
id America; and our conquest furor more, because from 
tjs the world hoped more. 

No, do not deceive yourselves. If we turn that war 
which was so solemnly commended to the favor of 
mankind as a generous war of liberation and humanity 
into a victory for conquest and self-aggrandizement, 
we shall have thoroughly forfeited our moral credit 
with the world. Professions of unselfish virtue and 
benevolence, proclamations of noble humanitarian 
purposes coming from us will never, never be trusted 
again. Is this the position in which this great republic 
of ours should stand among the family of nations? 
Our American self-respect should rise in indignant 
protest against it. 

And now compare this picture of the state of things 
which threatens us, with the picture I drew of our con- 
dition existing before the expansion fever seized us. 
Which will you choose? 

What can there be to justify a change of policy 
fraught with such direful consequences ? Let us pass 
the arguments of the advocates of such imperialism 
candidly in review. 

The cry suddenly raised that this great country has 
become too small for us is too ridiculous to demand an 
answer, in view of the fact that our present population 
may be tripled and still have ample elbow-room, with 
resources to support many more. But we are told that 
our industries are gasping for breath ; that we are suf- 
fering from over production ; that our products must 
have new outlets, and that we need colonies and 
dependencies the world over to give us more markets. 



26 

More markets? Certainly. But do we, civilized beings, 
indulge in the absurd and barbarous notion that we 
must own the countries with which we wish to trade ? 
Here are our ofi&cial reports before us, telling us that of 
late years our export trade has grown enormously, not 
only of farm products, but of the products of our manu- 
facturing industries; in fact, that "our sales of manu- 
factured goods have continued to extend with a facility 
and prompitude of results which have excited the seri- 
ous concern of countries that, for generations, had not 
only controlled their home markets, but had practically 
monopolized certain lines of trade in other lands. " 

There is a distinguished Englishman, the Right 
Hon. Charles T. Ritchie, President of the Board of 
Trade, telling a British Chamber of Commerce that 
"we (Great Britain) are being rapidly overhauled in 
exports by other nations, especially the United States 
and Germany," their exports fast advancing, while 
British exports are declining. What ? Great Britain, 
the greatest colonial power in the world, losing in com- 
petition with two nations one of which had, so far, no 
colonies or dependencies at all, and the other none of 
any commercial importance ? What does this mean ? 
It means that, as proved by the United States and Ger- 
many, colonies are not necessary for the expansion of 
trade, and that, as proved by Great Britain, colonics do 
not protect a nation against a loss of trade. Our trade 
expands, without colonies or big navies, because we 
produce certain goods better and in proportion cheaper 
than other people do. British trade declines, in spite of 
immense dependencies and the strongest navy, because 
it does not successfully compete with us in that respect. 
Trade follows, not the flag, but the best goods for the 
price. Expansion of export trade and new markets ! 
We do not need foreign conquests to get them, for we 
have them, and are getting them more and more in 
rapidly increasing growth, 

"But the Pacific Ocean," we are mysteriously told, 
"will be the great commercial battlefield of the future, 
and we must quickly use the present opportunity to 



27 

secure otir position on it. The visible presence of great 
power is necessary for us to get our share of the trade 
of China. Therefore, we must have the Philippines." 
Well, the China trade is worth having, although for a 
time out of sight the Atlantic Ocean will be an infinitely- 
more important battlefield of commerce than the Pacific, 
and one European customer is worth more than twenty 
or thirty Asiatics. But does the trade of China really 
require that we should have the Philippines and make 
a great display of power to get our share ? Read the 
consular reports, and you will find that in many places 
in China our trade is rapidly gaining, while in some 
British trade is declining, and this while Great Britain 
had on hand the greatest display of power imaginable 
and we had none. And in order to increase our trade 
there, our consuls advise us to improve our commercial 
methods, saying nothing of the necessity of establishing 
a base of naval operations, and of our appearing there 
with war ships and heavy gtms. Trade is developed, 
not by the best guns, but by the best merchants. But 
why do other nations prepare to fight for the Chinese 
trade ? Other nations have done many foolish things 
which we have been, and I hope will remain, wise 
enough not to imitate. If it should come to fighting 
for Chinese customers, the powers engaged m that fight 
are not unlikely to find out that they pay too high a 
price for what can be gained, and that at last the peace- 
ful and active neutral will have the best bargain. At 
any rate, to launch into all the embroilments of an 
imperialistic policy by annexing the Philippines in order 
to snatch something more of the Chinese trade would be 
for us the foolish est game of all. 

Generally speaking, nothing could be more irrational 
than all the talk about our losing commercial or other 
opportunities which "will never come back if we fail to 
grasp them now." Why, we are so rapidly growing in 
all the elements of power ahead of all other nations that, 
not many decades hence, unless we demoralize ourselves 
by a reckless policy of adventure, not one of them will 
be able to resist our will if we choose to enforce it. 



28 

This the world knows, and is alarmed at the prospect. 
Those who are most alarmed may wish that we should 
give them now, by some rash enterprise, an occasion for 
dealing us a damaging blow while we are less irresistible. 

" But we must have coaling stations for our navy ! " 
Well, can we not get as many coaling stations as we 
need without owning populous countries behind them 
that would entangle us in dangerous political responsi- 
bilities and complications ? Must Great Britain own the 
whole of Spain in order to hold Gibraltar ? 

" But we must civilize those poor people ! " Are we 
not ingenious and charitable enough to do much for 
their civilization without subjugating and ruling them 
by criminal aggression ? 

The rest of the pleas for imperialism consist mostly 
of those high-sounding catch-words of which a free peo- 
ple when about to decide a great question should be 
especially suspicious. We are admonished that it is 
time for us to become a "world power." Well, we are 
a world power now, and have been for many years. 
What is a world power ? A power strong enough to 
make its voice listened to with deference by the world 
whenever it chooses to speak. Is it necessary for a 
world power, in order to be such, to have its finger ia 
every pie ? Must we have the Philippines in order to 
become a world power? To ask the question is to 
answer it. 

The American flag, we are told, whenever once 
raised, must never be hauled down. Certainly, every 
patriotic citizen will always be ready, if need be, to fight 
and to die under his flag wherever it may wave in justice 
and for the best interests of the country. But I say to 
you, woe to the republic if it should ever be without 
citizens patriotic and brave enough to defy the dema- 
gogues' cry and to haul down the flag wherever it may 
be raised not in justice and not for the best interests of 
the country. Such a republic would not last long. 

But, they tell us, we have been living in a state of 
contemptible isolation which must be broken so that we 
may feel and conduct ourselves "as a full-grown mem- 



29 

ber of the femily of nations." What is that so-called 
isolation ? Is it commercial ? Last year our foreign 
trade amounted to nearly 2000 million dollars, and is 
rapidly growing. Is that commercial isolation ? Or are 
we politically isolated ? Remember our history. Who 
was it that early in this century broke up the piracy of 
the Barbary States ? Who was it that took a leading 
part in delivering the world's commerce of the Danish 
Sound dues ? Who was it that first opened Japan to 
communication with the western world ? And what 
power has in this century made more valuable contribu- 
tions to international law than the United States ? Do 
you call that contemptible isolation ? It is true, we did 
not meddle much with foreign affairs that did not concern 
tts. But if the circle of our interests widens and we 
wish to meddle more, must we needs have the Philip- 
pines in order to feel and conduct ourselves as a mem- 
ber of the family of nations ? 

We are told that, having grown so great and strong, 
we must at last cast off our childish reverence for the 
teachings of Washington's farewell address — those 
"nursery rhymes that were sung around the cradle of 
the republic." I apprehend that many of those who 
now so flippantly scoff at the heritage the Father of 
his Country left us in his last words of admonition, have 
never read that venerable document. I challenge those 
who have, to show me a single sentence of general im- 
port in it that would not as a wise rule of national con- 
duct apply to the circumstances of to-day ! What is it 
that has given to Washington's farewell address an 
authority that was revered by all until our recent victo- 
ries made so many of us drunk with wild ambitions ? 
Not only the prestige of Washington's name, great as 
that was and should ever remain. No, it was the fact 
that under a respectful observance of those teachings 
this republic has grown from the most modest begin- 
nings into a Union spanning this vast continent; our 
people have multiplied from a handful to 75 millions; 
we have risen from poverty to a wealth the sum of 
which the imagination can hardly grasp; this American 



30 

nation has become one of the greatest and most pow- 
erful on earth, and, continuing in the same course, will 
surely become the greatest and most powerful of all. 
Not Washington's name alone gave his teachings their 
dignity and weight. It was the practical results of his 
policy that secured to it, until now, the intelligent 
approbation of the American people. And unless we 
have completely lost our senses, we shall never despise 
and reject as mere " nursery rhymes " the words of wis- 
dom left us by the greatest of Americans, following 
which the American people have achieved a splendor of 
development without parallel in the histoiy of mankind. 

You may tell me that this is all very well, but that 
by the acts of our own government we are now in this 
annexation business, and how can we get decently out 
of it ? I answer that the difficulties of getting out of it 
may be great; but that they are infinitely less great 
than the difficulties we shall have to contend v/ith if we 
stay in it. 

Looking them in the face, let us first clear our minds 
of confused notions about our duties and responsibilities 
in the premises. That our victories have devolved upon 
us certain duties as to the people of the conquered 
islands, I readily admit. But are they the only duties 
we have to perform, or have they suddenly become par- 
amount to all other duties ? I deny it. I deny that the 
duties we owe to the Cubans and the Porto Ricans and 
the Filipinos and the Tagals of the Asiatic islands ab- 
solve us from our duties to the 75 millions of our own 
people and to their posterity. I deny that they oblige 
us to destroy the moral credit of our own republic by 
turning this loudly heralded war of liberation and 
humanity into a land-grabbing game and an act of 
criminal aggression. I deny that they compel us to 
aggravate our race troubles, to bring upon us the con- 
stant danger of war, and to subject our people to the 
galling burden of increasing armaments. If we have 
rescued those unfortunate daughters of Spain, the colo- 
nies, from the tyranny of their cruel father, I deny that we 
are therefore m honor bound to marry any of the girls, 



3' 

or to take them all into our household, where the7 may 
disturb and demoralize our whole family. I deny that 
the liberation of those Spanish dependencies morally con- 
strains us to do anything that would put our highest mis- 
sion to solve the great problem of democratic government 
in jeopardy, or that would otherwise endanger the vital 
interests of the republic. Whatever our duties to them 
may be, our duties to our own country and people stand 
first; and from this standpoint we have, as sane men 
and patriotic citizens, to regard our obligation to take 
care of the future of those islands and their people. 

They fought for deliverance from Spanish oppression, 
and we helped them to obtain that deliverance. That 
deliverance they understood to mean independence. I 
repeat the question whether anybody can tell me why 
the declaration of Congress that the Cubans of right 
ought to be free and independent should not apply to all 
of them ? Their independence, therefore, would be the 
natural and rightful outcome. This is the solution of 
the problem first to be taken in view. 

It is objected that they are not capable of inde- 
pendent government. They may answer that this is 
their affair and that they are at least entitled to a trial. 
I frankly admit that if they are given that trial, their 
conduct in governing themselves will be far from per- 
fect. Well, the conduct of no people is perfect, not 
even our own. They may try to revenge themselves 
upon their tories in their Revolutionary War. But we, 
too, threw our tories into hideous dungeons during our 
Revolutionary War and persecuted and drove them 
away after its close. They may have bloody civil broils. 
But we, too, have had our Civil War which cost hun- 
dreds and thousands of lives and devastated one-half of 
our land; and now we have in horrible abundance the 
killings by lynch law, and our battles at Virden. They 
may have troubles with their wild tribes. So had we, 
and we treated our wild tribes in a manner not to be 
proud of. They may have corruption and rapacity in 
their government, but Havana and Ponce may get 
municipal administration almost as good as New York 



32 

has under Tammany rule; and Manila may secure a 
city council not much less virtuous than that of Chicago. 

I say these things not in a spirit of levity, well un- 
derstanding the difference; but I say them seriously to 
remind you that, when we speak of the government 
those islands should have, we cannot reasonably set up 
standards which are not reached even by the most civil- 
ized people, and which in those regions could not be 
reached, even if we ourselves conducted their govern- 
ment with our best available statesmanship. Our atten- 
tion is in these days frequently called to the admirable 
and in many respects successful administrative ma- 
chinery introduced by Great Britain in India. But it 
must not be forgotten that this machinery was evolved 
from a century of rapine, corruption, disastrous blun- 
ders, savage struggles, and murderous revolts, and that 
even now many wise men in England gravely doubt in 
their hearts whether it was best for their country to 
imdertake the conquest of India at all, and are troubled 
by gloomy forebodings of a calamitous catastrophe that 
«ay some day engulf that splendid fabric of Asiatic 
dominion. 

No, we cannot expect that the Porto Ricans, the 
Cubans, and the Filipinos will maintain orderly govern- 
ments in Anglo-Saxon fashion. But they may succeed 
in establishing a tolerable order of things in their own 
fashion, as Mexico, after many decades of turbulent 
disorder, succeeded at last, under Porfirio Diaz, in hav- 
ing a strong and orderly government of her kind, not, 
indeed, such a government as we would tolerate in this 
Union, but a government answering Mexican character 
and interests, and respectable in its relations with the 
outside world. 

This will become all the more possible if, without 
annexing and ruling those people, we simply put them 
on their feet, and then give them the benefit of that 
humanitarian spirit which, as we claim, led us into the 
war for the liberation of Cuba. To this end we should 
keep our troops on the islands only until their people have 
constructed governments and organized forces of their 



3^ 

own for the maintenance of order. Our military occu- 
pation should not be kept up as long: as possible, but 
should be withdrawn as soon as possible. 

The Philippines may, as Belg-ium and Switzerland 
are in Europe, be covered by a guarantee of neutrality 
on the part of the powers most interested in that region 
— an agreement which the diplomacy of the United 
States sliould not find it difficult to obtain. This would 
secure them against foreign aggression. As to the inde- 
pendent republics of Porto Rico and Cuba, our govern- 
ment might lend its good offices to unite them with San 
Domingo and Hayti in a confederacy of the Antilles, to 
give them a more respectable international standing. 
Stipulations should be agreed upon with them as to open 
ports and the freedom of business enterprise within their 
borders, affording all possible commercial facilities. 
Missionary effort in the largest sense, as to the develop- 
ment of popular education and of other civilizing agen- 
cies, as well as abundant charity in case of need, will on 
our part not be wanting, and all this will help to miti- 
gate their disorderly tendencies and to steady their gov- 
ernments. 

Thus we shall be their best friends without being 
their foreign rulers. We shall have done our duty to 
them, to ourselves, and to the world. However imper- 
fect their governments may still remain, they will at 
least be their own, and they will not with their disorders 
and corruptions contaminate our institutions, the integ- 
rity of which is not only to ourselves, but to liberty- 
loving mankind, the most important concern of all. We 
may then await the result with generous patience — with 
the same patience with which for many years we wit- 
nessed the revolutionary disorders of Mexico on our very 
borders, without any thought of taking her government 
into our own hands. 

Ask yourselves whether a policy like this will not 
raise the American people to a level of moral greatness 
never before attained ! If this democracy, after all the 
intoxication of triumph in war. conscientiously remem- 
bers its professions and pledges, and, soberly rellects 



34 

on its duties to itself and others, and then deliberately 
resists the temptation of conquest, it will achieve the 
grandest triumph of the democratic idea that history 
knows of. It will give the government of, for, and by 
the people a prestige it never before possessed. It will 
render the cause of civilization throughout the world a 
service without parallel. It will put its detractors to 
shame, and its voice will be heard in the council of 
nations with more sincere respect and more deference 
than ever. The American people, having given proof 
of their strength and also of their honesty and wisdom, 
will stand infinitely mightier before the world than any 
number of subjugated vassals could make them. Are 
not here our best interests, both moral and material ? 
Is not this genuine glor^' ? Is not this true patriotism ? 
I call upon all who so believe never to lose heart in 
the struggle for this great cause, whatever odds may 
seem to be against us. Let there be no pusillanimous 
yielding while the final decision is still in the balance. 
Let us relax no effort in this, the greatest crisis the 
republic has ever seen. Let us never cease to invoke 
the good sense, the honesty, and the patriotic pride of 
the people. Let us raise high the flag of our country — 
not as an emblem of reckless adventure and greedy con- 
quest, of betrayed professions and broken pledges, of 
criminal aggressions and arbitrary rule over subject 
populations — but the old, the true flag, the flag of George 
Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the flag of the 
government of, for, and by the people ; the flag of 
national faith held sacred and of national honor unsullied; 
the flag of human rights and of good example to all 
nations ; the flag of true civilization, peace, and good- 
will to all men. Under it let us stand to the last, what- 
ever betide. 



LlbKHKY Uh LUNbKtbb 



013 717 882 5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0013 7178825 



Hollingcr 

pH 8.5 

Mai Run H)3.2193 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 717 882 5 



Hollingcr 

pH 8.5 

Mill Run F03.2193 



